Re: Schema.org v3.3 release candidate for review

Hi Thad,

I am supportive of your proposed amendment to the description of the
*publicAccess
*property*, *and appreciate your view on why it makes sense in this context.

I have discussed it with Felipe in the Tourism group and he is of the same
opinion.

~Richard.



Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 25 May 2017 at 15:01, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Richard & Felipe,
>
> Finally a well explained reason that I am OK with having just a boolean
> and not a Type.
> " If I wanted as a traveler to visit the Cave of Altamira, I would be
> happy to find it in a search engine, learn that it is closed, and that I
> can visit instead its replica and interpretation centre."
>
> It sounds like Felipe is trying to say that the word "accessible" also
> means "open" to him and the Tourist industry.
>
> If the intent was to equate the 2 notions of "accessible" and
> "open"...Perhaps an addendum to the description of the property
> "publicAccess" would be to say also that ...
>
> "A flag to signal that the Place is accessible *or open *to public
> visitors.  *If this property is omitted there is no assumed default
> boolean value*"
>
> As always, it seems the descriptions we choose can make or break proper
> usage and why I am always so adamant about giving our descriptions more
> context.
>
> But regardless, I feel strongly now (with a better description on the
> property) that a boolean can work just fine and there is no need for a new
> Type.
>
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>